1) If God is perfect, then whatever He creates must therefore be perfect. (Indeed, a perfect God cannot create imperfection)2) God created the universe.3) Therefore, the universe must therefore be perfect.

but

4) The universe is full of imperfections.5) Therefore, a perfect God did not create the universe.

Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler

1) If God is perfect, then whatever He creates must therefore be perfect. (Indeed, a perfect God cannot create imperfection)2) God created the universe.3) Therefore, the universe must therefore be perfect.

but

4) The universe is full of imperfections.5) Therefore, a perfect God did not create the universe.

Beautiful parents that make ugly children come to mind.

Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama

1) If God is perfect, then whatever He creates must therefore be perfect. (Indeed, a perfect God cannot create imperfection)2) God created the universe.3) Therefore, the universe must therefore be perfect.

but

4) The universe is full of imperfections.5) Therefore, a perfect God did not create the universe.

1) If God is perfect, then whatever He creates must therefore be perfect. (Indeed, a perfect God cannot create imperfection)2) God created the universe.3) Therefore, the universe must therefore be perfect.

but

4) The universe is full of imperfections.5) Therefore, a perfect God did not create the universe.

How are you defining perfect here? God is perfect in the sense that he is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenolovent and perfect moral agent, meaning he is also all-just. He is also typically defined in the Judeo-Christain Tradition as being immaterial and timeless.

Multiple Perfect Persons is Contradictory

In my opinion, it comes down to whether or not God can create another God. In my opinion this is contradictory because if there are multiple gods, then god or gods cease to be the omnipotent, because there is a being that can challenge his power. The power is matched and one god no longer has total power. A quality of being omnipotent is that God can be held accountable to no one nor is anyone equal to him.

The Universe is Not God

By this I mean that everything else that is not God lacks what God has. That is because the creation is not God, and anything that lack God is necessarily imperfect. Even the angels are imperfect.

Also, God cannot create God, as it is a contradiction that cannot exist.

1) If God is perfect, then whatever He creates must therefore be perfect. (Indeed, a perfect God cannot create imperfection)2) God created the universe.3) Therefore, the universe must therefore be perfect.

but

4) The universe is full of imperfections.5) Therefore, a perfect God did not create the universe.

This argument is not persuasive, easily refuted. We have good arguments, so this one just muddies the waters.

1) If God is perfect, then whatever He creates must therefore be perfect. (Indeed, a perfect God cannot create imperfection)2) God created the universe.3) Therefore, the universe must therefore be perfect.

but

4) The universe is full of imperfections.5) Therefore, a perfect God did not create the universe.

How are you defining perfect here? God is perfect in the sense that he is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenolovent and perfect moral agent, meaning he is also all-just. He is also typically defined in the Judeo-Christain Tradition as being immaterial and timeless.

Multiple Perfect Persons is Contradictory

In my opinion, it comes down to whether or not God can create another God. In my opinion this is contradictory because if there are multiple gods, then god or gods cease to be the omnipotent, because there is a being that can challenge his power. The power is matched and one god no longer has total power. A quality of being omnipotent is that God can be held accountable to no one nor is anyone equal to him.

The Universe is Not God

By this I mean that everything else that is not God lacks what God has. That is because the creation is not God, and anything that lack God is necessarily imperfect. Even the angels are imperfect.

Also, God cannot create God, as it is a contradiction that cannot exist.

Awsome. Very well stated.

: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.

At 2/20/2012 7:42:11 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:How are you defining perfect here? God is perfect in the sense that he is omnipotent, omniscient, . . . .

Story book god isn't omniscient and it lied also with regards to 1 John 3:20 KJV Story book

It didn't know several things and had to come down to find out LOL! e.g. -

And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. (Gen. 11:5) KJV Story book&And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; 21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know. (Gen. 18:20-21) KJV Story book

At 2/20/2012 7:42:11 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:How are you defining perfect here? God is perfect in the sense that he is omnipotent, omniscient, . . . .

Story book god isn't omniscient and it lied also with regards to 1 John 3:20 KJV Story book

It didn't know several things and had to come down to find out LOL! e.g. -

And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. (Gen. 11:5) KJV Story book&And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; 21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know. (Gen. 18:20-21) KJV Story book

Yawn. You misunderstand 'come down', and since you obviously didnt put it all together; how did he know the cry of sodom and gomorah was great? were they all literally crying allowed and he just heard it? He was automatically aware of their sin, he was providing narative to abraham. You do understand God is speaking to him right?

very similar right above that scripture, but in full context:" 10 Then one of them said, "I will surely return to you about this time next year, and Sarah your wife will have a son."Now Sarah was listening at the entrance to the tent, which was behind him.11 Abraham and Sarah were already very old, and Sarah was past the age of childbearing.12 So Sarah laughed to herself as she thought, "After I am worn out and my lord is old, will I now have this pleasure?"13 Then the LORD said to Abraham, "Why did Sarah laugh and say, ‘Will I really have a child, now that I am old?' 14 Is anything too hard for the LORD? I will return to you at the appointed time next year, and Sarah will have a son."15 Sarah was afraid, so she lied and said, "I did not laugh."But he said, "Yes, you did laugh."

Was he really asking because he didn't know? or was he simply pointing out sarahs lack of faith ligtly?

He deals with us like children. E.g. - I saw my daughter push some of her food on the floor so she didn't have to eat it. I then ask her, "did you throw the food down on the floor?" of course she did, because i just saw her; so the point of me asking isn't to find out if she did or not, but rather to see if she will tell the truth. Now in Gods case, he knew the answer ahead of time, but was explaining it to abraham in a way he might understand and recognize his point.

: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.

Why does the option to sin, necessarily make the entire universe unperfect? It couldve simply made humans inperfect, but everything else stay perfect.

Furthermore, there are things that are not perfect that do not have anything to do with Sin. Animals, for example, are far from perfect, Yet animals cannot sin because they do not have souls. Many structural defects within humans are also inherently flawed by structure and have nothing to do with Sin.

At 2/20/2012 7:42:11 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:How are you defining perfect here? God is perfect in the sense that he is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenolovent and perfect moral agent, meaning he is also all-just. He is also typically defined in the Judeo-Christain Tradition as being immaterial and timeless.

Multiple Perfect Persons is Contradictory

In my opinion, it comes down to whether or not God can create another God. In my opinion this is contradictory because if there are multiple gods, then god or gods cease to be the omnipotent, because there is a being that can challenge his power. The power is matched and one god no longer has total power. A quality of being omnipotent is that God can be held accountable to no one nor is anyone equal to him.

This is why omnipotence in itself is a contradiction. Being omnipotent automatically means that you should be able to create something of equal strength to yourself. However, if you are claiming that the definition of Omnipotence is being accountable to no one but yourself, then you are no longer omnipotent. On the flipside, if you cannot create something that is of equal strength to yourself, then you are, again, not omnipotent.

If you are willing to accept your own argument as a counter against the OP, then this argument is equally valid to disprove the omnipotence of God.

The Universe is Not God

By this I mean that everything else that is not God lacks what God has. That is because the creation is not God, and anything that lack God is necessarily imperfect. Even the angels are imperfect.

The universe is not sentient, and therefore cannot act or choose to act. In this way, the universe will always be, by definition, unable to challenge God.

If this is true, then there is no reason why the unvierse could not be perfect.

1) If God is perfect, then whatever He creates must therefore be perfect. (Indeed, a perfect God cannot create imperfection)

This premise is flawed. A perfect being could certainly create something with imperfections as long as that their intent.

According to the christian Doctrine, The universe, Man, the garden of eden, all of it was perfect and Good, until Man sinned. Therefore, your objecion is flawed, as according to the christian doctrine this perfect being created a universe which he deemed perfect.

1) If God is perfect, then whatever He creates must therefore be perfect. (Indeed, a perfect God cannot create imperfection)

This premise is flawed. A perfect being could certainly create something with imperfections as long as that their intent.

2) God created the universe.3) Therefore, the universe must therefore be perfect.

but

4) The universe is full of imperfections.5) Therefore, a perfect God did not create the universe.

If God intentionally created something less than his abilities allow him, then that is a form of evil in my opinion. Any God who created a conscious creature intentionally less than up to par with his skill then that is just sadistic.

a) Creation and design are only tools used to improve imperfectionb) The hypothesis is God created the universec) If the hypothetical God exists, he cannot be perfect because he created and designed the universe

What logic do I have to back up my first premise? Well if I was perfect I could teleport to work everyday but since I'm not, a car needs designing. If I was perfect I wouldn't get bit by bugs or get cold, but since I'm not perfect, a house/ shelter needs designing. If I was perfect I could send this message telepathically, but I'm not so a monitor, internet, keyboard ect. needs designing...

Basically, there is no logical reason to create or design something other than to improve imperfection. If the theory is God created the universe, then he cannot be perfect because he logically must have created the universe to improve on some imperfection that involved him (considering only he existed apparently before the universe did).

At 2/21/2012 3:27:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:I have a different argument from perfection:

a) Creation and design are only tools used to improve imperfectionb) The hypothesis is God created the universec) If the hypothetical God exists, he cannot be perfect because he created and designed the universe

What logic do I have to back up my first premise? Well if I was perfect I could teleport to work everyday but since I'm not, a car needs designing. If I was perfect I wouldn't get bit by bugs or get cold, but since I'm not perfect, a house/ shelter needs designing. If I was perfect I could send this message telepathically, but I'm not so a monitor, internet, keyboard ect. needs designing...

Basically, there is no logical reason to create or design something other than to improve imperfection. If the theory is God created the universe, then he cannot be perfect because he logically must have created the universe to improve on some imperfection that involved him (considering only he existed apparently before the universe did).

That was, very intellectual.You are stating, that since a being, who created the eniter universe (Math, phsyics, logic, etc), could in no way possibly be perfect, because you don't think he would have created imperfect things, and because they require improvements?

Did you ever think that it might have been made that way for a purpose? despite the fact you can't understand it. In order to understand perfection, you need imperfection. I won't even claim to know why things are the way they are, but your argument is excluding the possibiltiy of purpose and reason.

Saying he isn't perfect because it doesn't fit into my idea of perfection, is completely meaningless, and not even very imaginative.

: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.

At 2/21/2012 3:27:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:I have a different argument from perfection:

a) Creation and design are only tools used to improve imperfectionb) The hypothesis is God created the universec) If the hypothetical God exists, he cannot be perfect because he created and designed the universe

What logic do I have to back up my first premise? Well if I was perfect I could teleport to work everyday but since I'm not, a car needs designing. If I was perfect I wouldn't get bit by bugs or get cold, but since I'm not perfect, a house/ shelter needs designing. If I was perfect I could send this message telepathically, but I'm not so a monitor, internet, keyboard ect. needs designing...

Basically, there is no logical reason to create or design something other than to improve imperfection. If the theory is God created the universe, then he cannot be perfect because he logically must have created the universe to improve on some imperfection that involved him (considering only he existed apparently before the universe did).

That was, very intellectual.You are stating, that since a being, who created the eniter universe (Math, phsyics, logic, etc), could in no way possibly be perfect, because you don't think he would have created imperfect things, and because they require improvements?

Did you ever think that it might have been made that way for a purpose? despite the fact you can't understand it. In order to understand perfection, you need imperfection. I won't even claim to know why things are the way they are, but your argument is excluding the possibiltiy of purpose and reason.

Saying he isn't perfect because it doesn't fit into my idea of perfection, is completely meaningless, and not even very imaginative.

"You are stating, that since a being, who created the eniter universe (Math, phsyics, logic, etc), could in no way possibly be perfect, because you don't think he would have created imperfect things, and because they require improvements?"

That's not what I said at all, my 3 point argument has nothing to do with him creating imperfect beings. I said creation and design are only tools to improve on imperfection, so if God created the universe, he cannot be perfect because he created/ designed it.

Unless you can name a logical reason why a being would create/ design other than to improve imperfection, then my argument is completely logically sound.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that perfection is objective.

Can we define perfection for starters:Dictionary:somebody or something that reaches the highest attainable standard, or an instance of this

Perfection, like beauty, is 100% subjective, else perfection does not exist. How can you reach and attain the highest standard of something, if the "highest standard" is relative?...I can say a perfect apple is one that is green...I find a green apple, therefore I may say it is perfect.

The use of perfection to define God is an attempt to hide behind the sheer extreme ambiguity of the word. God is perfect only if he meets the standard of the beholder that deems him perfect.

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

It was not perfect before sin. There were diseases, earthquakes, tornadoes, tsunamis, hurricanes, asteroid impacts killing off species before the first human ever walked. Nice try....

I don't believe so, and many scientist would argue the same.

There are about 480,000 scientist in related fields such as the evolutionary idea(not theory), in 1987 there was 700 opposing it; ten years later - apprx 24,000.The number is growing fast... more scientist are growing balls and challenging their teachers and counterparts evidencless proclamations.

it only makes sense, that if you argument against god, is you can't see him nor prove him; that you cannot prove any creature exsisted before huimans, and cannot determine how long ago. Every system used to do this, is so flawed and wanting that it almost a lie to claim you know something based off it.

: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.

At 2/21/2012 3:45:24 PM, 000ike wrote:You seem to be operating under the assumption that perfection is objective.

Can we define perfection for starters:Dictionary:somebody or something that reaches the highest attainable standard, or an instance of this

Perfection, like beauty, is 100% subjective, else perfection does not exist. How can you reach and attain the highest standard of something, if the "highest standard" is relative?...I can say a perfect apple is one that is green...I find a green apple, therefore I may say it is perfect.

The use of perfection to define God is an attempt to hide behind the sheer extreme ambiguity of the word. God is perfect only if he meets the standard of the beholder that deems him perfect.

It was not perfect before sin. There were diseases, earthquakes, tornadoes, tsunamis, hurricanes, asteroid impacts killing off species before the first human ever walked. Nice try....

I don't believe so, and many scientist would argue the same.

There are about 480,000 scientist in related fields such as the evolutionary idea(not theory), in 1987 there was 700 opposing it; ten years later - apprx 24,000.The number is growing fast... more scientist are growing balls and challenging their teachers and counterparts evidencless proclamations.

it only makes sense, that if you argument against god, is you can't see him nor prove him; that you cannot prove any creature exsisted before huimans, and cannot determine how long ago. Every system used to do this, is so flawed and wanting that it almost a lie to claim you know something based off it.

"it only makes sense, that if you argument against god, is you can't see him nor prove him; that you cannot prove any creature exsisted before huimans, and cannot determine how long ago"

That is the most idiotic thing I have every read on here. There is physical evidence which proves these creatures existed and how long ago, there is 0 physical evidence a God exists. There isn't even any evidence that an immaterial being is even possible....Your argument should be humiliating to you.

At 2/21/2012 3:45:24 PM, 000ike wrote:You seem to be operating under the assumption that perfection is objective.

Can we define perfection for starters:Dictionary:somebody or something that reaches the highest attainable standard, or an instance of this

Perfection, like beauty, is 100% subjective, else perfection does not exist. How can you reach and attain the highest standard of something, if the "highest standard" is relative?...I can say a perfect apple is one that is green...I find a green apple, therefore I may say it is perfect.

The use of perfection to define God is an attempt to hide behind the sheer extreme ambiguity of the word. God is perfect only if he meets the standard of the beholder that deems him perfect.

"a) Creation and design are only tools used to improve imperfectionb) The hypothesis is God created the universec) If the hypothetical God exists, he cannot be perfect because he created and designed the universe

What logic do I have to back up my first premise? Well if I was perfect I could teleport to work everyday but since I'm not, a car needs designing. If I was perfect I wouldn't get bit by bugs or get cold, but since I'm not perfect, a house/ shelter needs designing. If I was perfect I could send this message telepathically, but I'm not so a monitor, internet, keyboard ect. needs designing...

Basically, there is no logical reason to create or design something other than to improve imperfection. If the theory is God created the universe, then he cannot be perfect because he logically must have created the universe to improve on some imperfection that involved him (considering only he existed apparently before the universe did)."

So far my argument still stands without any valid refutation, and I'm sure there are some intellectual Christians who would like to take a stab at it..

At 2/21/2012 3:45:24 PM, 000ike wrote:You seem to be operating under the assumption that perfection is objective.

Can we define perfection for starters:Dictionary:somebody or something that reaches the highest attainable standard, or an instance of this

Perfection, like beauty, is 100% subjective, else perfection does not exist. How can you reach and attain the highest standard of something, if the "highest standard" is relative?...I can say a perfect apple is one that is green...I find a green apple, therefore I may say it is perfect.

The use of perfection to define God is an attempt to hide behind the sheer extreme ambiguity of the word. God is perfect only if he meets the standard of the beholder that deems him perfect.

At 2/21/2012 3:45:24 PM, 000ike wrote:You seem to be operating under the assumption that perfection is objective.

Can we define perfection for starters:Dictionary:somebody or something that reaches the highest attainable standard, or an instance of this

Perfection, like beauty, is 100% subjective, else perfection does not exist. How can you reach and attain the highest standard of something, if the "highest standard" is relative?...I can say a perfect apple is one that is green...I find a green apple, therefore I may say it is perfect.

The use of perfection to define God is an attempt to hide behind the sheer extreme ambiguity of the word. God is perfect only if he meets the standard of the beholder that deems him perfect.

That didn't refute what I wrote, it more agreed with it. So you say perfection is without flaw,...so how do you define a flaw?

Flaws are subjective, what you call flaw, I call an asset!

"Flaws are subjective, what you call flaw, I call an asset!"

Your appendix for example is a flaw, there is no logical way to deem that an asset. Your subjective argument fails on most accounts and only applies to some things.

Yes that conclusion would follow,...only if we accepted the faulty premise that there is no logical way to deem the appendix an asset.

Do You Accept the following?:1. Perfection is attained when there are no flaws2. Flaws are subjectiveC: Perfection is subjective

I do not need to prove the appendix to be an asset for me to prove it is perfect, all I have to do it prove it has no flaw. Your definition of flaw is not my definition of flaw. If you call the appendix obsolete and obsolescence is a flaw in your eyes, then I may say that obsolescence is not a flaw,...it is neutral. It is neither good nor bad. Therefore the appendix is perfect.

If you're still not convinced I'd be happy to debate you on this.

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

At 2/21/2012 3:45:24 PM, 000ike wrote:You seem to be operating under the assumption that perfection is objective.

Can we define perfection for starters:Dictionary:somebody or something that reaches the highest attainable standard, or an instance of this

Perfection, like beauty, is 100% subjective, else perfection does not exist. How can you reach and attain the highest standard of something, if the "highest standard" is relative?...I can say a perfect apple is one that is green...I find a green apple, therefore I may say it is perfect.

The use of perfection to define God is an attempt to hide behind the sheer extreme ambiguity of the word. God is perfect only if he meets the standard of the beholder that deems him perfect.

That didn't refute what I wrote, it more agreed with it. So you say perfection is without flaw,...so how do you define a flaw?

Flaws are subjective, what you call flaw, I call an asset!

"Flaws are subjective, what you call flaw, I call an asset!"

Your appendix for example is a flaw, there is no logical way to deem that an asset. Your subjective argument fails on most accounts and only applies to some things.

Yes that conclusion would follow,...only if we accepted the faulty premise that there is no logical way to deem the appendix an asset.

Do You Accept the following?:1. Perfection is attained when there are no flaws2. Flaws are subjectiveC: Perfection is subjective

I do not need to prove the appendix to be an asset for me to prove it is perfect, all I have to do it prove it has no flaw. Your definition of flaw is not my definition of flaw. If you call the appendix obsolete and obsolescence is a flaw in your eyes, then I may say that obsolescence is not a flaw,...it is neutral. It is neither good nor bad. Therefore the appendix is perfect.

If you're still not convinced I'd be happy to debate you on this.

"Do You Accept the following?:1. Perfection is attained when there are no flaws2. Flaws are subjectiveC: Perfection is subjective"

No I don't accept it because flaws are objective for the most part. Do you know what can happen if you don't get your appendix removed? Appendicitis. To any logical person, having this part in your body when it serves no positive function and can harm you is a flaw.

Getting alcohol poisoning when you drink too much alcohol, is a flaw and in no logical way can be considered an asset. A planet that is subject to life ending asteroid impacts has flaws, and cannot logically be considered an asset.

Just like health is objective (certain things are healthy, certain things are not) so are flaws. There are only a few instances where flaws are subjective like if someone asks you to look at a painting and says "What flaws does it have?", however for the most part flaws are objective.